TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting case ...


" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The interesting part of this case is that it is the Obama administration that is saying that protectors of the realm....errr... Secret Service agents... must not be held responsible / accountable when they make a snap decision (in this case, 10 minutes after the event occurred, after the actor left, picked up his kiddoh, then returned to the general area and lost track of his kid, coming to the attention of the SS because he was acting anxious, refusing to allow the SS to question him, the SS then deciding that they needed to arrest him at that point)... when they're trying to protect the President or Vice President.

Everyone "knows" that police have to make snap decisions, but even the Secret Service should be able to get it right over 10 minutes later.

n5wd wrote:The interesting part of this case is that it is the Obama administration that is saying that protectors of the realm....errr... Secret Service agents... must not be held responsible / accountable when they make a snap decision (in this case, 10 minutes after the event occurred, after the actor left, picked up his kiddoh, then returned to the general area and lost track of his kid, coming to the attention of the SS because he was acting anxious, refusing to allow the SS to question him, the SS then deciding that they needed to arrest him at that point)... when they're trying to protect the President or Vice President.

Everyone "knows" that police have to make snap decisions, but even the Secret Service should be able to get it right over 10 minutes later.

I'd say that with this particular president, the Secret Service has every reason to be nervous for his safety. He has seriously ticked off a huge percentage of the population—the "more likely to own guns than the liberal koolaid drinkers" percentage. I'm not saying that has any bearing on this particular story......just making a general observation about how presidential security details must have harder or easier assignments depending on the flavor of their particular president's administration, and on how polarizing that president is in the nation's political landscape.

just to clarify in case anyone reads this thread and only sees first two responses before reading info in the link

the incident in this case involved vice president Cheney in 2006 - the Obama ADMINISTRATION is supporting the Secret Service side of things - but Obama himself had nothing whatsoever to do with this and was not president at the time this happened.

My guess: The SS agent was afraid he'd catch heck for letting someone get close enough to touch the VP, he freaked out and made accusations that were not true, then tried to get other people to change their story to match his.

Now, I'm sure there are facts not in evidence that would prove my newspaper postulating completely wrong... but.. If I was placing a bet, that'd be my "wasn't-there" guess.

A-R wrote:just to clarify in case anyone reads this thread and only sees first two responses before reading info in the link

the incident in this case involved vice president Cheney in 2006 - the Obama ADMINISTRATION is supporting the Secret Service side of things - but Obama himself had nothing whatsoever to do with this and was not president at the time this happened.

That's why I did not comment on the story, but just a general observation about presidential security in general, and this particular president's security in specifics.

It will be interesting to see how this case affects the new Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Act
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/03/ ... ounds-act/

The Annoyed Man wrote:

A-R wrote:just to clarify in case anyone reads this thread and only sees first two responses before reading info in the link

the incident in this case involved vice president Cheney in 2006 - the Obama ADMINISTRATION is supporting the Secret Service side of things - but Obama himself had nothing whatsoever to do with this and was not president at the time this happened.

That's why I did not comment on the story, but just a general observation about presidential security in general, and this particular president's security in specifics.

wasn't accusing you of anything big guy, except maybe being asleep with a big annoyed scowl on your face under that hat

A-R wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

A-R wrote:just to clarify in case anyone reads this thread and only sees first two responses before reading info in the link

the incident in this case involved vice president Cheney in 2006 - the Obama ADMINISTRATION is supporting the Secret Service side of things - but Obama himself had nothing whatsoever to do with this and was not president at the time this happened.

That's why I did not comment on the story, but just a general observation about presidential security in general, and this particular president's security in specifics.

wasn't accusing you of anything big guy, except maybe being asleep with a big annoyed scowl on your face under that hat

I guess I'm coming off a little grumpy lately. I sure don't mean to be or to sound that way. Sorry if I did.

But you're SUPPOSED to sound grumpy ... you're Annoyed